It is important to consider ADR in real-estate litigation, says Eversheds
William Densham, partner and real-estate litigation expert at Eversheds, has commented on the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in the case of PGF II SA v OMFS, which confirmed that a party’s failure to respond to an offer of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is unreasonable conduct that will allow the court to deviate from the usual cost consequences of a Part 36 offer.
Densham said that ADR is a key element of the Jackson reforms, encompassed in the recently published Jackson ADR handbook, and that ADR should play an important role in reducing the use of the court’s resources and costs.
He added: ‘This case confirms that the court will not tolerate parties unreasonably failing to consider ADR. It is wise to revisit any previous offers of ADR to ensure responses are given and any refusals are justified.
‘Undoubtedly, there are likely to be cost consequences for not fully responding to an offer to mediate, even if it may be entirely reasonable to do so.’
News from Eversheds
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Eversheds
Technology acquisitions round-up — Facebook acquires LiveRail; Apple acquires Beats Electronics; and more
In this briefing, Eversheds sets out a choice pick of mergers and acquisitions from 2014 so far.
In Carewatch Care Services v Focus Caring Service and Others, Mr Justice Henderson had to consider the enforceability of standard post-termination restrictions.
Analysis from The Lawyer
A new breed of lawyer is smoothing the path for companies entering emerging or unstable jurisdictions
‘Exotic’ investors and opportunities for legal work beyond M&A feature in The Lawyer’s high-level roundtable debate on south-east Europe